Jackson v. City of Los Angeles, (August 28, 2003)
* court: California appellate court
* public agency: City of Los Angeles, California
* plaintiffs job class: police officer
* trial court's decision: in favor of City
* Appellate court's decision: in favor of plaintiff
* issue area: POBR section 3304(d)
Jackson Facts
* Plaintiff was a Los Angeles police officer
* Plaintiff's partner told another officer about statements
plaintiff made.
* That officer told his supervisor, who two weeks later told an IA
sergeant.
* A year later an administrative complaint of termination was filed
against the plaintiff.
* A trial court rejected plaintiff's decision.
* Plaintiff raised the one-year statute issue before the Boards of
Rights and the trial court
Analysis of the Appellate Court
* Charter cities have home rule powers under the California
Constitution.
* When an issue of statewide concern exists, then state law on that
issue applies to a charter city, regardless of what is in the charter
of that city.
* The California Supreme Court in Baggett v. Gates (1982)
held that POBR is a matter of statewide concern and thus applies to
charter cities, but the POBR's one-year statute of limitations was not
part of POBR when the Supreme Court issued its Baggett
decision.
*The Jackson appellate court considered it necessary to go
through an entire Baggett analysis as to POBR's one-year
statute of limitations and concluded that it is a matter of statewide
concern..
* The Jackson court concluded that POBR's one-year statute
applied to Jackson.
*The one-year starts when "a person authorized to initiate an
investigation" finds out about the alleged misconduct.
